"The first victory we can claim is that our hearts are free of hatred. Hence we say to those who persecute us and who try to dominate us: ‘You are my brother. I do not hate you, but you are not going to dominate me by fear. I do not wish to impose my truth, nor do I wish you to impose yours on me. We are going to seek the truth together’. THIS IS THE LIBERATION WHICH WE ARE PROCLAIMING."
Oswaldo José Payá Sardiñas (2002)

Thursday, August 31, 2017

“The generalized and systematic use of excessive
force during demonstrations and the arbitrary detention of protestors and
perceived political opponents indicate that these were not the illegal
or rogue acts of isolated officials...” - UN Human Rights Office

GENEVA (30 August 2017) – Extensive human
rights violations and abuses have been committed in the context of anti-Government
protests in Venezuela and point to “the existence of a policy to repress
political dissent and instill fear in the population to curb demonstrations,”
a report* by the UN Human Rights Office has found.“The generalized and systematic use of excessive
force during demonstrations and the arbitrary detention of protestors and
perceived political opponents indicate that these were not the illegal
or rogue acts of isolated officials,” the report says.

The report calls on the UN Human Rights Council
to consider taking measures to prevent the human rights situation in Venezuela,
currently a Council member, from worsening.Analysis by the UN Human Rights Office indicates
that of the 124 deaths linked to the protests being investigated by the
Attorney General’s Office as of 31 July, the security forces were reportedly
responsible for 46 and pro-Government armed groups, known as armed colectivos,
for 27.

Responsibility for the remaining 51 deaths has not yet been determined.

During the period covered by the report, 1
April to 31 July, the Attorney-General’s Office opened investigations
into at least 1,958 cases of reported injuries in the context of demonstrations.
The report’s analysis of injuries shows the use of force progressively
escalated. In the first half of April, the majority of injuries were from
inhaling tear gas; by July, medical personnel were treating gunshot injuries.

“The policies pursued by the authorities
in their response to the protests have been at the cost of Venezuelans’
rights and freedoms,” said UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid
Ra’ad Al Hussein.

“The Government must ensure there are prompt, independent
and effective investigations of the human rights violations allegedly committed
by the security forces and of the abuses involving armed colectivos
or violent protesters. This includes ensuring that the investigations initiated
by the Attorney General during the period covered by this report continue
and are scrupulously and visibly impartial,” he stressed.

“The right to peaceful assembly was systematically
violated, with protestors and people identified as political opponents
detained in great numbers. The report also identifies serious violations
of due process and patterns of ill-treatment, in some cases amounting to
torture,” Zeid said.

According to reliable estimates from a local
NGO, more than 5,000 people were detained since 1 April, with more than
1,000 reportedly still held as of 31 July. At least 609 civilians arrested
in the context of protests were presented before military tribunals. The
report calls on the Government to halt arbitrary detention and the use
of military courts to try civilians.

Loosely organized groups of anti-Government
protestors resorted to violent means, using improvised weapons ranging
from rocks and slingshots to Molotov cocktails and homemade mortars, the
report says. At least four people were allegedly killed by anti-Government
groups or individuals and, according to the Government, nine members of
the security forces had been killed as of 31 July. The report calls on
the opposition parties to condemn all acts of violence, in particular when
these originated from groups of violent protesters.

The report documents attacks against journalists
and media workers by security forces that were apparently aimed at preventing
them from covering demonstrations. “Demonstrators and journalists were
labelled by high-level authorities as ‘enemies’ and ‘terrorists’ –
words that did little to counter, and may even have contributed to, the
climate of violence and polarization,” the High Commissioner said.

While acknowledging that the number of demonstrations,
detentions and deaths have decreased since 1 August, Zeid expressed concern
about recent measures taken by authorities to criminalize leaders of the
political opposition through the Commission of Truth, Justice and Peace.

“The Commission, recently established by
the Constituent Assembly, does not meet the basic requirements of transparency
and impartiality, to conduct investigations that are independent and free
from political motivation on human rights violations and abuses,” he said.

The High Commissioner warned that amid continuing
economic and social crises and rising political tensions, there is a grave
risk the situation in Venezuela will deteriorate further.

“I encourage the Venezuelan Government to
follow up on the recommendations made in the report and to use its findings
as guidelines to seek truth and justice for the victims of human rights
violations and abuses. I once again call on the Government to renounce
any measure that could increase political tension in the country and appeal
to all parties to pursue meaningful dialogue to bring an end to this crisis,”
Zeid said.

*As the Venezuelan Government did not respond
to requests for access, a team of human rights investigators conducted
remote monitoring from 6 June to 31 July. The report is based on their
analysis of the information they gathered, including through some 135 interviews
with victims and their families, witnesses, civil society organizations,
journalists, lawyers, doctors, first responders and the Attorney General’s
Office.Read the full report here: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/VE/HCReportVenezuela_1April-31July2017_EN.pdf

Video interview with Hernán Vales, UN Human
Rights Officer, about the report. Link available for download for
7 days:https://we.tl/GpcWWlSXpP

The Slovak-based People in Peril conducted a study between 2005 and 2006
that generated a 77 page analysis, What is the future of education in
Cuba?, that a decade a go found an educational system in ruins . Eliska Slavikova of People in Peril interviewed by El Nuevo Herald
on October 23, 2007 observed ''Cuban education is destroyed, with grave
problems like the deterioration of the schools, the predominance of
ideology over teaching and the bad preparation of teachers.'' The study
made the following findings:

• There's been a ''pronounced'' departure of teachers to other jobs because of low salaries and the lack of social recognition.
• Many teachers also left their jobs because of the government's growing
ideological pressures. The primary objective of education is the
formation of future revolutionary communists.
• The great majority of schools lack the equipment and installations needed to provide a good education.
• High school graduates have been put to teach after only an eight-month
special course. But much of the teaching now is done through
educational TV channels.

A later analyses of Cuba's educational system in 2008 and more recently in 2015 arrived at the same conclusions on lack of quality, resources and continued politicization of the curriculum. Although Amnesty International mentions "people who have been expelled from university for accessing 'unapproved' information" there is no mention of students expelled and professors fired for their political views or familial ties to Cuban dissidents.

Meanwhile at the University of Miami in the midst of a controversy where the Institute of Cuban and Cuban American Studies was shut down, all staff fired, and the director, Professor Jaime Suchlicki, apparently forced out on August 15, 2017 because the new president of the University of Miami Julio Frenk wanted to go in a different direction which involved engaging the Castro regime and shutting down a center of academic inquiry. The controversy led UM president Frenk to backpedal and pledge that ICCAS would be reopened and that there would be no institutional relationship with the Castro regime, although they already do exist in other departments.

Inside Higher Education in an article titled "A U.S. University Cuts Itself off From Cuba" quotes "Caleb Everett, a professor and the chair of the anthropology department" who said that
"we understand the dilemma that Frenk is facing in this kind of case
where he has a very vocal minority that understandably has strong
opinions on the matter. Our strong belief is that to move forward with
Cuba from an academic perspective we need collaborative efforts."

UM Professor Everett would like to frame this discussion as a "vocal minority" in the community with "strong opinions" in order to not address the substance of the irregular manner in which ICCAS was shut down and the questions of academic freedom that were raised in the subsequent dialogue along with questions about the complete lack of academic freedom in Cuba and its links to the Cuban dictatorship's spying apparatus. At a time when American and Canadian diplomats have suffered hearing loss and brain damage in Cuba, due either to an attack or espionage gone wrong, these questions have new and urgent relevance as does the need for UM's the Institute of Cuban and Cuban American Studies to maintain its independence and ability to debunk the Castro regime's false narrative with serious scholarship. Both Amnesty International and Professor Everett should know better and not repeat the false narrative propagated by the Castro regime.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Nonviolence was not even considered as an option in Germany in the 1930s and some would repeat the error again now in dealing with Nazis.

Burning of the German Parliament: Act of property destruction consolidated Nazi rule

On MSNBC on August 26, 2017 Professor Mark Bray, a historian and lecturer at Dartmouth, and author of "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, made the claim that fascism could only be defeated by violence and that Weimar Germany had practiced free expression against the Nazis and that passive acceptance of Hitler's movement fueled their rise to power, and that violence was the only way to defeat fascism. The historical record says otherwise.

First, Weimar Germany had modern like hate speech laws and vigorously enforced them but it did not have the desired effect. Making the Nazis hate speech illegal and outlawing their publications raised their profile and gathered more support. The New Yorker on February 14, 2015 in the article "Copenhagen, Speech and Violence" interviewed Flemming Rose, the foreign editor of the Danish daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten who set the record straight:

"Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite
frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role
in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to
claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic
speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality.
Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius
Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served
two prison sentences."

The outcome of silencing hate speech is not what those who advocate for it would expect as Rose continued to explain:

"Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering
anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations
machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never
have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from
1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's
newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer
than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater
became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important
platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews. In the words of a
present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very
much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some
vigor."

Antifa (Anti Fascist Action) arose for the first time in violent opposition to the Nazis in a united front in 1932. However the Communist Party (KPD) in Germany viewed the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the main center left party, as "fascists painted red" because they supported the existing market system. The SPD believed that they could use the apparatus of the state to pursue the Nazis in the courts and through hate speech legislation. Meanwhile the Communists actively fought the Nazi brownshirts in the streets, and that they alone, with their violence, could dismantle the Nazi movement.

Anti Fascist Action conference in Germany (1932)

Both approaches raised the profile of the National Socialists (Nazis) and the physical violence, and destruction of property created uncertainty in the populace that played to the Nazis favor. Of course there were other factors two that are often highlighted are the humiliating terms for Germany in the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 following their defeat in World War One, and the Great Depression in 1929 were major factors that also contributed to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis.

When Adolf Hitler enters office as Chancellor in January of 1933, the German parliament (Reichstag) was burned to the ground on February 27, 1933, the Nazis were able to blame the Communists, and use this act of violence to justify the enabling laws that consolidated Hitler's dictatorial powers. Decades later and there is still controversy about who actually set the fire, but the violent record of Antifa in fighting the Nazis made claims by the Nazis that they had set the fire plausible. Add to this that the Soviet Union and international communist movement would ally with Nazi Germany on August 28, 1939 until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941.

“Through
Nazism, the German youth has lost all individuality of thought and
feeling. The great mass of young people has lost its heart and is
degraded to the level of a machine. … A friend of mine, whose work it is
to cross-examine German prisoners of war in England, was deeply shocked
by the spiritual narrowness and heartlessness of these young men, and
agreed with me that non-violence could not be applied with any success
against such robots...”

Gandhi responded to the letter
pointing out that the author had sent his name and address but that he
(Gandhi) withheld both out of fear that harm would come to him if they
were made public. Gandhi responded:

“Non-violent action,
if it is adequate, must influence Hitler and easily the duped Germans.
No man can be turned into a permanent machine. Immediately the dead
weight of authority is lifted from his head, he begins to function
normally. To lay down any such general proposition as my friend has,
betrays ignorance of the working of non-violence.”

University Academics Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth in their 2008 study "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic on Nonviolent Conflict"
compared the outcomes of 323 nonviolent and violent resistance
campaigns from 1900 to 2006. They found that major nonviolent campaigns
have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with just under
half that at 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns. Finally there
study also suggests “that nonviolent campaigns are more likely than
violent campaigns to succeed in the face of brutal repression.”

The idea that one could only resist the Nazis violently with guns, bombs
and explosives because they were so evil led to two outcomes: 1) acts of violent resistance which the Nazis used to escalate their violence against those populations
that resisted and 2) that millions who did not have a "weapon"
cooperated believing they had no other choice and marched to their deaths.

This happened in part because a the third option was not considered: refusing to cooperate, nonviolent resistance as a realistic alternative to dealing with the fascists. Even more shocking that in 2017 the lie that only violence works against fascists is still being peddled in our news media when the examples of Denmark and Rosenstrasse are so well documented.

The Nazi threat today should not be underestimated and law enforcement agencies should remain vigilant in dealing with whatever violent actions they carry out and hold them accountable before the law. However history has demonstrated that Antifa, hate speech laws and labeling mainstream political parties fascist did not stop the Nazis but as a matter of fact helped fuel their rise to power and the later consolidation of Hitler's rule. Repeating those tactics today is madness.

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When
change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction
is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as
among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past
are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana

Monday, August 28, 2017

Yulier Rodriguez Perez with shirt that reads in Spanish "Respect for Urban Art"

Urban artist at risk in Cuba:Yulier Rodriguez Perez

After being arbitrarily detained on 17 August, Yulier Perez, a graffiti artist known for painting dilapidated walls in Havana, is at risk of being imprisoned again, after months of intimidation and harassment from authorities.

State officials arbitrarily detained Yulier Rodriguez Perez, or Yulier P., known for his art work on the ruined walls of Havana, the capital, on 17 August in Central Havana. He told Amnesty International that he was released on the evening of 18 August on the condition that he remove all his artwork from the walls of Havana by 25 August.

Amnesty International has followed the case of Yulier Perez since early 2017, when he told the organization he had been forced out of his art studio. His international profile has increasingly grown. In 2016, he told newspaper 14 y medio, “My pictures are like fables, a portrait of people’s experiences…They are like souls, because at some point we stop being people and now we are souls in a purgatory called Cuba.” In April 2017, police summoned and questioned him about his interviews with the international press and his opinions about his art. Yulier Perez said that state security officials threatened to charge him with “dangerousness” (peligrosidad), or a range of other provisions of the Penal Code. In July, Yulier Perez travelled to the USA to participate in an art exhibition. On his return, police summoned him again. Subsequently, he hand-delivered letters to the Minister of Culture and Minister of External Relations, asking for their intervention in the frequent police harassment.

Decree No. 272 (20 February 2001) establishes administrative penalties for infringements on public adornments and monuments, and establishes that any alteration of walls or external parts of buildings is a fineable offence. Such an offence is not contemplated in the Penal Code. Yulier Perez is at risk of being criminally charged with “dangerousness” solely for the exercise of his right to freedom of expression. Cuban authorities have frequently used this vague and overly broad provision against human rights defenders and any others who appear to contradict the “norms of socialist morals”.

Provisions foreseeing the punishment of individuals not because of their actions or attitudes, but because of the likelihood of potential, future and uncertain actions breach the principle of legality.

Please write immediately in Spanish or your own language:
Urging the Cuban authorities to ensure that law enforcement officials do not arbitrarily detain Yulier Rodriguez Perez as an attempt to restrict the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of expression;
Calling on them to make sure that free artistic expression is adequately protected, and to repeal all legislation which unduly limits the right to freedom of expression;
Calling on them to amend provisions of the Penal Code, such as the provision on “peligrosidad”, that are so vague that they lend themselves to abuse by state officials to restrict freedom of expression.

Please check with your section office if sending appeals after the above date.

Additional Information

Amnesty International has documented harassment, intimidation, and arbitrary arrests of artists in Cuba for decades. In the late 1980s, members of artistic organizations were detained in their homes and charged with “illegal association”.

Cuban authorities have previously arbitrarily detained graffiti artists for exercising their right to freedom of expression. In 2015, Danilo Maldonado Machado (also known as ‘El Sexto’) spent almost 10 months in prison without trial following accusations of “aggravated contempt” after being arrested on 25 December 2014 for transporting two pigs with the names “Raúl” and “Fidel” painted on them, which he intended to release in an art show in Havana’s Central Park. He was never formally charged nor brought before a court during the almost 10 months he spent in detention. Danilo Maldonado Machado was again arrested at his home in Havana the morning of 26 November 2016, hours after the announcement of Fidel Castro’s death. That same day, Cuba-based newspaper 14 y medio reported that he had graffitied the words “He’s gone” (Se fue) on a wall in Havana. He was detained for almost two months, according to his family, without formal charges.

Article 75.1 of the Penal Code provides that any police officer can issue a warning (acta de advertencia) for “dangerousness”. A warning can also be issued for associating with a “dangerous person.” Municipal tribunals have the authority to declare someone to be in a dangerous pre-criminal state. They can do so summarily within pre-set timeframes which are so short – less than 11 days from charge to sentence – that they effectively “deprive the accused of the possibility of mounting an adequate legal defence”.

Security measures are imposed on those found to have a “dangerous disposition” by a municipal tribunal. These measures may include therapy, police surveillance or “re-education”. The latter may consist of internment in a specialized work or study establishment for a period of between one and four years. In most cases, internment is changed to imprisonment, even though in the Penal Code “dangerousness” is not punishable by imprisonment.

Mary Anastasia O'Grady today in her column in The Wall Street Journal, "Google’s Broken Promise to Cubans" sets the record straight on a controversy that began in late July.Last month on July 22, 2017 Rosa María Payá Acevedo tweeted that CubaDecide was banned in Cuba, describing it as "the error with which Google joins censorship in Cuba." This led to a flurry of tweets about the question of censorship and Google in Cuba. Mary O'Grady of The Wall Street Journal tweeted "Google bows to Cuban censorship."

Michael Weissenstein of the Associated Press replied that it wasn't Cuba but U.S. regulations and Google's Brett Perlmutter doubled down in a tweet blaming the U.S. embargo. Former Bush Administration official Jose Cardenas contested both Weissenstein's and Perlmutter's claims tweeting "that is simply NOT true. No US regs block websites in Cuba."Ms O'Grady finally set the record straight on Sunday in her column after following up with Google and the ISP:

Mr. Perlmutter did not cite any provision of the U.S. embargo that
requires the blocking of a nonprofit citizens’ initiative—because there
is no such provision. On Wednesday a Google spokesperson told me “we
can’t say for sure what’s causing the issue with that site but it isn’t
something we’re doing on our end . . . If you want more details, I
recommend you check with the ISP.”

By Friday the company was no
longer blaming the ISP. Instead, Google told me—in a paradox that must
be delicious for Castro—that it is Cuba Decide’s use of Google’s Project
Shield that is causing the problem. The shield is offered at no charge
for “news sites and free expression” against “distributed
denial-of-service” attacks. When it is used, it triggers the use of
Google’s App Engine even if Google is not the website’s host—which it
isn’t in this case—and Cubans cannot access the site.

Google has distanced itself from Mr Perlmutter's statements saying they“do not represent an official Google position” and that the content of his tweet was made “before all the facts of the specific situation were known,” they told Mary O'Grady.

According to their blog "the Tor network is a group of volunteer-operated servers that allows people
to improve their privacy and security on the Internet." On August 28, 2017 the Tor Blog revealed that Google is blocking Cuban websites:

Cuba’s ISP isn’t the only one blocking access to services. OONI’s Network Diagnostic Test (NDT) relies on M-Lab servers,
which in turn rely on Google App Engine. Initially, we weren’t able to
run NDT tests in Cuba. Once we manually specified the test servers, not
only were we able to run NDT, but it also became evident that Google is
blocking access to Google App Engine from Cuba.

This confirms Rosa María Payá Acevedo's charge that Google was censoring Cuba Decide in Cuba.
Furthermore it raises the question when will Google lifts its blockade on Cuban dissident websites?

On August 9, 2017 State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert in a briefing revealed that two Cuban diplomats were expelled from the United States on May 23, 2017 in response to "incidents in Cuba." U.S. officials reported initially that five U.S. diplomats were targeted
by a "sonic weapon" that led to "severe hearing loss" that led to some
of them canceling their tours and returning early to the United States.

The attacks began in November of 2016 during the previous Administration which apparently had no knowledge of what was going on or downplayed it out of fear that it would tarnish President Obama's Cuba normalization legacy.

Back on December 17, 2014 this blog made the following observation: "Rewarding the hardline and rogue elements in the Castro regime is
unlikely to improve the dictatorship's behavior to the contrary it may
worsen."

Congress should hold hearings to find out what happened and if it is still happening and get to the bottom of what happened to 16 U.S. diplomats based in Cuba.

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

78 years ago on August 23, 1939 Josef Stalin and Adolph Hitler signed a treaty that was called a non-aggression treaty but it had a secret additional protocol
that divided up Eastern Europe. It was a an
aggression treaty were Nazi Germany and Soviet
Russia plotted against their neighbors leading to the outbreak of WW2 on September 1, 1939 when Poland was invaded and occupied.

Today in Europe, Canada and the United States many observe Black Ribbon Day in remembrance for victims of totalitarian regimes. Sadly, this body count continues to rise in 2017. Even in democracies totalitarian movements attempt to sow chaos and try to destabilize and undermine free societies.

Neo-Nazis are not in power at the national level but their movements wreak havoc around the world. Communists remain in power in 2017 in China, Vietnam, North Korea, Laos, Cuba, and in Venezuela with a rising body count of victims.

In light of events over the past few months more citizens of good will should organize events on Black Ribbon Day, write letters to the editor, and opinion pieces reminding the world of the need to remember what happened on August 23, 1939 and to denounce totalitarianism of all stripes. I hope that next year there will be a high profile Black Ribbon Day event in Miami.

Today marks the 78th anniversary of the Hitler-Stalin Pact when on August 23, 1939 the Nazi regime in Germany and the Communist regime in Russia joined together in a "non-aggression pact" with a secret protocol to divide up Poland, the Baltic States, Finland, and Romania after coordinating to wage aggressive wars against their neighbors. This flirtation between Communists and Nazis did not end until June 22, 1941 when three million German troops invaded Russia abrogating the non-aggression pact.

Bodo Hechelhammer, historical investigations director at the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND)—the German foreign-intelligence agency, in an interview with German newspaper Die Welt said: “Evidently, the Cuban revolutionary army did not fear contagion from
personal links to Nazism, so long as it served its their own
objectives.”

This is not the only racist or fascist ideological regime that the communist dictatorship in Cuba has collaborated with.

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

Seventy eight years ago on August 23, 1939 Josef Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, the first communist regime, signed a treaty with Adolph Hitler, the leader of Nazi Germany it was initially named after their respective foreign ministers, V.M. Molotov and Joachim von Ribbentrop, as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. However it also became known as the Hitler-Stalin Pact. It was publicly described by both parties as a non-aggression treaty but it had a secret additional protocol that divided up Poland and the Baltic states. In reality it was a an aggression treaty in which the two aggressors Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia agreed before hand how to divide up the spoils as follows:

Article I.
In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the
Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall
represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this
connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.

Article II.
In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to
the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded
approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.
The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an
independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely
determined in the course of further political developments.
In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement. ...

Nine days later on September 1, 1939 at 4:45 am Nazi Germany invaded Poland and World War II started. Sixteen days later the Soviet Union exercising its secret agreement with the Nazis invaded Poland from the East and met their German allies in the middle of Poland and on September 22, 1939 the German Nazi army joined with the Soviet Communist army in a military parade in Brest-Litovsk and the two sides celebrated together.

Each year on August 23rd beginning in 2009 there is a day of remembrance for the victims of Soviet Communism and Nazi Tyranny across Europe, Canada and the United States. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation will hold a Black Ribbon Day on Wednesday from 5:00pm to 6:00pm at the Victims of Communism Memorial located at the intersection of New Jersey Avenue NW and Massachusetts Avenue NW, in Washington, DC. If you plan to attend please RSVP.

This is an important moment to hold such a ceremony here in the United States when far too many Americans have openly marched in 2017 with Nazi Swastika flags and Soviet hammer and sickle flags there is a heightened need for acts of remembrance at the horrors unleashed by these twin symbols of hate and how the bloodiest and most brutal war in human history was unleashed on the world when these two evil systems conspired together under a banner of peace and non-aggression that was a lie. Between 1939 and 1945 an estimated 50 to 85 million people were killed in this conflict. Furthermore the anti-racist credentials of the Workers World Party
should be called into question when they support North Korea despite its racist screed against President Obama.

In times of great moral confusion it is important to recall past errors to avoid committing them again in the future. The ongoing debate in the United States of how to confront the menace of violent Neo-Nazism finds far too many Americans looking to AntiFa, a violent fringe group, linked to the Communist Party, to violently counter the white supremacists. The belief is that countering a violent and hateful ideologically motivated movement with another violent and hateful ideologically motivated movement will lead to at least the destruction of one or of both.

Hitler and Stalin salute each other over the corpse of Poland in this 1939 caricature

In the 1920s and 1930s in Germany groups with the same names and carrying the same flags fought in the streets, with each creating their own heroic narratives, in their decade long violent skirmishes. Fires were set, businesses trashed, and brawls carried out with each side portraying the other as dangerous terrorists, but in reality their radical movements fed off one another while weakening German democratic institutions as mob rule co-opted Weimar Germany, eventually it was taken over by Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party, consolidating power by blaming the communists for burning down of the German Parliament building on February 27, 1933 with the Enabling Laws.

There were other factors that fueled the rise of Nazism: the Great Depression, the punishing Treaty of Versailles, and the later appeasement of the West but the violent dynamic between the Communist Party and AntiFa against the Nazis in the 1930s helped the rise of Hitler more than impede it.

Nazism and Communism are two ideologies that together have claimed more than 160 million lives and remain a threat to civilization. They should not be underestimated, their histories remembered and condemned. This is why it is so important to observe Black Ribbon Day on August 23rd.

Monday, August 21, 2017

"They can silence protests, remove us from the legislature and lock us
up. But they will not win the hearts and minds of Hong Kongers". - Joshua
Wong

Citizen Power for China statement on the imprisonment of Alex Chow, Nathan Law, and Joshua Wong

Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow arbitrarily detained

On August 17, 2017, an appeal by the Chinese-controlled Hong Kong prosecution officially imprisoned three young student leaders, Alex Chow, Nathan Law and Joshua Wong, for their leadership in the 2014 umbrella movement. They were on the forefront of the Umbrella Movement, and were present during the only dialogue with the Hong Kong Government. The grim ending to their case gravely saddens us, and we express our solemn protest against the evil intentions of Chinese authorities.

It has now been three years since the protests that saw millions of young Hong Kong citizens flood to the streets and take up the fight for democracy, and against the meddling hands of the Chinese Communist Party. Citizen Power, and other Pro-democracy activists will never forget the continuing efforts of the organizers on the front lines, but the Chinese Communist Party is not willing to forget either.

At almost the same time two years ago, the trio had been convicted for taking part in or inciting an "illegal assembly", and sentenced to community service for their ideals. Through the guise of Hong Kong's Department of Justice, Beijing's heavy hand has worked maliciously to make a cautionary tale out of these young men.

They want to send a message to the people of Hong Kong that to rebel, and to express one's own thoughts is tantamount to committing a serious crime. A community service charge was never strong enough to send that message.

Judge Wally Yeung, who presided over the case, accused the call for democracy as "arrogant and self-righteous thinking", and a "sick trend" of anti-government protest. The message was sent. Alex, Nathan, and Joshua will spend seven months, eight months, and six months behind bars, respectively.
We are saddened by this abhorrent and transparent act of political imprisonment by the Chinese-backed government, and the setback it has caused for a peaceful transition to democracy in Hong Kong. Not only have the freedoms of the trio been stolen, but their ability to assume to office in the next five years has been unjustly taken as well -- in accordance with Hong Kong's laws prohibiting individuals jailed for more than 3 months to run for office within 5 years.

Chow, Law, and Wong may be behind bars, but we share their plea to other Hong Kongers to continue to fight for democracy in Hong Kong, which is now more important than ever. Xi Jinping's ambition to return to fundamental Marxist principles has seen him flex military might in Hong Kong, threatening to topple the rule of law.

They can silence protests, remove us from the legislature and lock us up. But they will not win the hearts and minds of Hong Kongers. - Joshua Wong

We wish Alex Chow, Nathan Law and Joshua Wong a safe 2017, and promise not to take their sacrifices for granted.

I stand in solidarity with Joshua, Nathan, Alex and the free people of Hong Kong in their struggle to remain free. I had the honor of meeting Alex and Nathan in 2015 at a gathering organized by Citizen Power for China.